Chaotic Home Conditions and Children's Adjustment: Study of Gender Differences

Received 08 Jul, 2011

Accepted 16 Nov, 2012

Published 31 Dec, 2012

Previous research evidence has shown strong associations between household chaos and children's behavioral and adjustment problems. However, the findings regarding gender differences in sensitivity to chaos are inconsistent. Therefore, the aim of the study was to study the gender differences in sensitivity to chaotic environment. Sample consisted of 150 primary school children (8-11 years) including 60 boys and 90 girls and their mothers. Data was collected form Rawalpindi (n = 101) and Lahore (n = 49). To measure home chaos Urdu translated version (Shamama-tus-Sabah & Gilani, 2008) of Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale-CHAOS (Matheny, Wachs, Ludwig, & Phillips, 1995) was used. To assess adjustment problems among children, teacher and parent rating scales of Behavioral Assessment System for Children-2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) were administered. Children's scores on aggression and depression subscales were taken as indicators of their adjustment. Two-way ANOV A was run to assess adjustment problems among children from high and low chaotic families and to explore gender differences in reactivity to home chaos among children. Results indicated significant main effect of home chaos for adjustment problems among children. However, the interaction effect of gender and choas were found to be nonsignificant showing that impact of chaos was same for both boys and girls.

Environmental chaos is an important aspect of children’s physical microenvironment and refers to microsystem context high in crowding, noise levels, having less structured environment with less routines, and regularities (Wachs, 2010, 1989). Evidence supports the associations between such chaotic environments with children’s poor cognitive ability (Evans, 2006), behavioral problems, poor academic achievement, low IQ (Deater-Deckard et al., 2009; Dumas, LaFreniere, & Serketich, 1995; Evans, Lepore, Shejwal, & Palsane, 1998; Supplee, Unikel, & Shaw, 2007), and with less effective parenting (Evans, Maxwell, & Hart, 1999; Wachs, 1979, 1993). Another interest which has been explored is gender differences among children in sensitivity to chaos; whether males and females react differently to environmental chaos?

Bronfenbrenners’s bio-ecological model (1979) provides a comprehensive theoretical background to explain the links between chaos and adverse developmental outcomes among children. The model explains five interlocking systems (i.e. microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem) in which microsystem refers to the immediate environment of the child such as home, daycare where they engage in proximal processes i.e., the interactions between the developing organism and persons, objects, and symbols in the immediate environment. Proximal processes for children’s effective functioning require stable and consistent environments and home chaos may lead to negative outcomes by interfering with them (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). The second proposition of bio-ecological model further explains that proximal processes may vary in their form, content, direction, and power due to joint function of the different characteristics of developing person, context, etc. The proposition with acronym PPCT states:

“The form, power, content, and the direction of the proximal processes producing development vary systematically as a joint function of the characteristics of the developing person, the environmental context—both immediate and more remote—in which the processes are taking place, and the social continuities and changes occur over time through the life course, and the historical period during which the person has lived and, of course, the nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, pp. 118-119)”.

The model offers a board context that includes process, person, context, and time to understand the relationship between development and microsystem proximal characteristics such as environmental chaos (Wachs, 2010). The PPCT aspects of the bio-ecological model help to understand the nature of chaos and its relation with development (Wach & Evans, 2010). The person dimension in PPCT framework refers to the concept of moderation — when the effect of microsystem characteristics (i.e. environmental chaos) varies systematically according to individual characteristic. Research has shown some characteristics (e.g. temperament) which act as potential or actual moderators, and gender is one of them (Wachs, 2010).

Gender has been found to have a moderating effect between variables such as density or crowding, stressful life events, parenting practices, environmental chaos and children’s developmental outcomes, however, the results are inconsistent. Some of the researchers indicated that boys are more sensitive to microsystem chaos (Aiello, Nicosia, & Thompson, 1979; Matheny, 1991; Matheny & Phillips, 2001; Wachs, Gurkas, & Kontos, 2004), whereas, others suggested that girls are more adversely effected by chaos compared to males (Christie & Glickman, 1980; Hambrick-Dixon, 1998), still others have reported nonsignificant gender and chaos interactions (Evans, 2003; Evans, Lepore, & Allen, 2000; Haines et al., 2001). Nonsignificant interactions could be because of insufficient statistical power, or involvement of higher order interactions including chronological age as an additional person variable (Wachs, 2010). This inconsistent pattern of research findings cannot be conclusive and is a source of future investigation.

Evidence regarding various aspects of home chaos has also reported similar inconsistent findings. For example, boys have been found to be more affected by crowding as compared to girls (Aiello et al., 1979; Aiello & Thompson, 1980). Loo (1979) reported girls getting affected by high spatial density and feel more crowded as compared to boys. On the other hand, boys were reported to be more affected by high social density environment (Loo & Kennelly, 1979). These inconsistencies might be attributed to the age of the children, where crowding has more adverse affects on young as compared to older adults (Aiello, Thompson, & Baum, 1985; Evans, 1978).

Little evidence regarding the association between home chaos and children’s adjustment is available in Pakistani context, similarly on gender differences in sensitivity to environmental chaos. Available evidence supports the associations between environmental chaos and lower academic achievement among Pakistani children (Shamama-tus-Sabah & Gilani, 2010; Quaid, Khan, Anwar, & Mateen, 2001). Keeping in view the earlier findings from western and nonwestern cultures including Pakistan, we intended to test whether children form high chaotic families will exhibit low levels of adjustment as compared to children from low chaotic families. To assess the level of adjustment we measured aggression and depression as indicators of social and emotional adjustment (Schonert-Reichl, Lawlor, Oberle, & Thomson, 2009).

Middle childhood is the period when bullying, mood disorders, and disruptive behavioral disorders become more common problems. Aggression is one of the three areas of socio-emotional adjustment in which gender differences have been extensively reported. Severe conduct problems have been shown more common in boys as compared to girls. Research has also shown the role of both shared and nonshared environment in the development of behavioral problems among children (Eley, Deater-Deckard, Fumbonne, Fulker, & Plomin, 1998; Peterson, 1961).

We hypothesized that children who would score higher on these variables would be less adjusted as compared to those who scored low. We also wanted to see if gender moderates between home chaos and children’s adjustment, and whether boys and girls react differently to chaotic conditions.

METHOD

Sample
The sample consisted of 150 primary school children (boys = 60; girls = 90) between the age of 8-11 years and their mothers (n = 150). The children were taken from Federal Government schools and data were collected from two cities of Pakistan, Rawalpindi (n = 101) and Lahore (n = 49). Given the increased urbanization in Pakistan the urban areas were selected (Haider & Badami, 2010). Rawalpindi and Lahore are the two most densely populated cities of Pakistan.

Sample was chosen according to the sampling criteria i.e. a) intact families with no case of divorce or separation; b) The number of children in each family should range from 2 to 7; and c) mothers were educated enough to be able to read and comprehend both Urdu and English language. We were unable to get permission from the copyright holder to translate the BASC-2 rating scales in Urdu language (the primary spoken language in Pakistan), therefore, restricted our sample to educated mothers. The teachers (n = 7) who taught the same children for more than a year were also included in the sample. They were requested to fill the teacher rating forms.

The mean income of the sample families was 12,000/- PKR per month. Since the families were reluctant to report their actual income the socio-economic index of the sample was calculated with the help of the Economic Department of the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan and was based on the household possessions of the families (Mumtaz & Salway, 2007; Winkvist & Akhtar, 1997). The index ranged from 1 to 100. The households lie between 0-25 was ranked as low social class, 26-74 as middle, and 75-100 as high social class. Out of total sample, 46.7% families (n = 70) were from low socioeconomic status (SES), 48.6% (n = 73) were form middle SES, and 10% (n = 7) were from higher SES. As expected we found significant positive correlation of socioeconomic index to both maternal education (r = .25, p < .01) and paternal education (r = .32, p < .01). The sample characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1:	Sample Characteristics (N = 150)

Measures
Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale - Urdu Version (CHAOS-U). It was originally developed by Matheny et al. (1995). It was designed to measure home chaos with satisfactory reported reliability (α = .79). The scale consisted of 15 items having true false format. Seven items were reverse scored to offset response set. The total score was derived by summing up the individual responses. High score showed more chaotic conditions and vice versa. For the present study Urdu version of CHAOS with same scoring format was used. Satisfactory alpha reliability (.75) has been reported for the translated version (Shamama-tus-Sabah & Gilani, 2008). For the present study the alpha is .75.

Behavioral Assessment System for Children-2^nd Edition (BASC-2). Parent and teachers rating forms of BASC-2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) were used to measure levels of aggression and depression among children. BASC-2 measures various aspects of children’s adjustment and behavioral problems. Parent Rating Scale (PRS) consists of 160 statements and Teachers Rating Scale (TRS) has 139 statements. TRS assess Externalizing problems (Aggression, Hyperactivity, Conduct Problems), Internalizing Problems (Depression, Anxiety, Somatization), School problems, and Adaptive Skills. PRS includes all the TRS scales except School Problems and includes a dimension ‘activities of daily living’ in subscale of Adaptive Skills that the TRS does not measure (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). Satisfactory reliability and validity measures have been reported for both the parents and teachers rating scales (see manual for details, Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). In the present study, only two subscales Depression (Internalizing problems) and Aggression (Externalizing problems) were used as the test allows the use of separate subscales by providing individual scoring of different subscales. For the present study, the calculated alpha reliability of the subscales Aggression and Depression (PRS) were .78 and .67, respectively. For TRS subscales of Aggression and Depression, it was .85 and .68, respectively.

Procedure
The authorities of Federal Government schools were contacted first to get permission. School principals were also contacted individually to explain the objectives and purpose of the study. The permission letters were sent to parents through children explaining the purpose with a request to fill the form of basic information so that the sample can be selected according to the above mentioned sampling criteria. From Rawalpindi, 300 families were contacted, out of which 121 met the study criteria and 101 agreed to participate. For Lahore, out of 200 families, 55 met the criteria and 49 agreed to participate. The parents who agreed were again individually contacted through telephones to confirm their participation and to give them information about the procedure. Mothers were contacted at their homes and were requested to fill the demographic form first and then CHAOS–U and BASC-2 PRS. TRS were given to teachers in their schools and were collected back after one week.

RESULTS

To test both the hypotheses i.e. to see the affect of chaos on children’s adjustment, and moderating role of gender, two-way ANOVA was used. Descriptive analysis was done first. The descriptive details are presented in Table 2. The intercorrelation among subscales (CHAOS scale), Aggression (both TRS & PRS), and Depression (both TRS & PRS) were computed and found to be moderate in magnitude ranging from .22 to .66 all significant at p < .01.

Table 2:	Means and Standard Deviations of Children’s Scores of Aggression and Depression on PRS and TRS from Low Chaotic and High Chaotic Families (N = 150)

The original CHAOS scale does not provide cutoff score to make a distinction between high and low chaotic families. Therefore, the sample was divided into high and low chaotic families by median split (Median = 4) and the two groups were formed (Coldwell, Pike, & Dunn, 2006). High chaotic families were coded as 0 and low chaotic families were coded as 1. Gender was coded as 0 for females and 1 for males. High chaotic group had 64 families where as low chaotic group had 86 families. Two-way ANOVA was run separately for Parent (see Table 3) and Teacher rating scales (see Table 4). The two groups (high and low chaotic families) were also compared on maternal education, paternal education, and social class level. We found nonsignificant mean differences between the low and high chaotic families on maternal education (t = 1.19, p = .24), paternal education (t = 1.07, p = .29), and social class (t = .28, p = .78).

Table 3:	F-values of Children’s Scores on Aggression and Depression Subscales of Parent Rating Scale from Low Chaotic and High Chaotic Families (N = 150)
aR squared = .139 (adjusted R squared = .121) bR squared = .126 (adjusted R squared = .109)

Results in Table 3 indicates significant main effects of home chaos and Gender on children’s aggression as perceived by their parents. Gender × Chaos term is nonsignificant. On depression subscale, home chaos is found to have a significant main effect, however, results reveal nonsignificant main effect of gender. The interaction of gender and chaos is also nonsignificant (see Table 3).

Table 4:	F-values of Children’s Scores on Aggression and Depression Subscales of Teacher Rating Scale from Low Chaotic and High Chaotic Families (N = 150)
a. R squared = .166 (adjusted R squared = .149) b. R squared = .093 (adjusted R squared = .074)

In Table 4, on TRS main effects of home chaos and gender are significant for children’s aggression score, however, Gender × Chaos term is nonsignificant. On depression scale the main effect of home chaos is significant. Both the main effects of gender and Gender × Chaos term are nonsignificant.

Regarding our second hypothesis we found nonsignificant Gender × Chaos interaction for all four scales. It indicates that impact of chaos was similar for both male and female children and gender was not found as having a moderating effect between chaos and children’s adjustment.

DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to assess the impact of chaos on children’s adjustment and to study the gender differences in reactivity to chaotic environment among Pakistani primary school children. Our results support the earlier findings conducted in western developed countries. Regarding our mean CHAOS-U Score which is 4.05(2.91) it can be argued that most of the families were less chaotic in the sample. However, the comparison was done between the mean CHAOS-U score of our sample with the mean scores of those studies conducted in US (Coldwell et al., 2006; Corapci & Wachs, 2002; Matheny et al., 1995). We found our mean score as higher with greater variance than those studies conducted in western cultures. In addition the same pattern of results between chaos and children’s adjustment further supports the internal consistency of our instrument.

Regarding our first objective we found significant mean differences between children from high and low chaotic families on their aggression and depression scores. The children from chaotic families were perceived as high on depression and aggression both by their parents and teachers. The nonsignificant differences between low and high chaotic families on parents’ education and social class and independent ratings of teachers further support the adverse effects of chaos on children’s adjustment. These findings are in line with previous studies showing strong positive associations between chaos and children’s behavioral problems (Atzaba-Poria & Pike, 2008; Coldwell et al., 2006; Corapci & Wachs, 2002; Dumas et al., 2005; Evans, Lepore et al., 1998) while simultaneously supporting our first hypothesis (Andrade et al., 2005; Dumas et al., 2005; Evans, Bullinger, & Hygge, 1998; Evans, Hygge, & Bullinger, 1995) and clearly explain the importance of regular routines and structured environment for children’s development. Consistent findings indicate links between frequency of family mealtimes with children’s positive outcomes, including reduced smoking, less mental health problems, reduced alcohol, and sexual risk taking (Compan, Moreno, Ruiz, & Pascual, 2002; Eisenberg, Olson, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Bearinger, 2004).

Our results regarding the hypothesis of gender moderation are nonsignificant indicating similar adjustment outcome of boys and girls towards microsystem chaos. Research studies addressing moderators of environmental chaos particularly gender moderation has reported inconsistent findings. Some studies has reported females as more affected by chaos and still others have reported nonsignificant Gender × Chaos interaction (for review see Evans & Wachs, 2010). Similarly, studies regarding impact of density and crowding on children’s outcome have presented differential affects for boys and girls.

Loo (1978) compared the results of her three studies involving children of five and ten years old and concluded that effects of density diminishes with age. The crowded environment resulted in more physical aggression, distress, and negative effect for younger children as compared to older ones. The older children showed more avoidance of each other to handle the situation. These findings suggest that crowding is more detrimental for young children and are consistent with Evans’ (1978) view who after review concluded that crowding results in more adverse affects for young as compared to adult organisms. One possibility of differential male and female sensitivity to chaos is the involvement of higher order interaction, age being one of them. Previous findings have indicated age as further moderating this differential sensitivity being males more sensitive to chaos in preschool and infancy (5 of the 6 studies, Wachs, 2010) and waning sex differences thereafter, three of the four studies report nonsignificant gender × chaos interactions having preschool or elementary school age children or adults and two studies indicate females as more sensitive involving kindergarten or school age children (Wachs, 2010). Our results showing nonsignificant gender × chaos interactions among school age children are consistent with these findings.

Our results showing main effects of gender on aggression subscale are consistent with earlier findings. Men/boys have consistently been shown as more aggressive than girls (Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, & Wasti, 2009; Lightdale & Prentice, 1994). However, our results did not show main effect of gender on depression which is again in line with previous evidence indicating that gender differences on depression emerge in mid-puberty (Angold, Costello, & Worthman, 1998; Hankin et al., 1998; Oldehinkel, Wittchen, & Schuster, 1999). Moreover, research shows that before age 11 boys are more depressed than females (Costello, Mustillo, ErKanli, Keelen, & Angold, 2003; Hankin et al., 1998). Our results have also indicated boys as slightly high on depression scores as compared to girls. However, these effects should be interpreted independently of chaos and might be attributed to various other variables such as temperament, parental depression, stressful life events, etc. (Charbonneau, Mezulis, & Hyde, 2009; Oldehinkel, Veenstra, Ormel, De Winter, & Verhulst , 2006).

CONCLUSION, SUGGESTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

The results indicate that children from high chaotic families exhibit more aggression and depressive symptoms as compared to children from low chaotic families as reported by their parents and teachers. In addition, the effects of home chaos were similar for boys and girls. Our results are inline with previous findings from western cultures, and have widened the literature by adding the findings from non-western developing country, Pakistan. Although the generalizibility of our results is limited as per small sample and inclusion of educated mothers only (12^th to 16^th grade education), however, it highlights the importance of family functioning at microsystem level and provides a valid research question to study the impact of chaos on children from educated families. Given the issue of increasing population and urbanization in Pakistan, it may have affected the microsystem characteristics such as noise pollution, number of persons living per home or room, which are needed to be addressed. Moreover, the inconsistent results regarding gender sensitivity is another source of future research to test the hypothesis of greater male sensitivity in early years as compared to females particularly in Pakistani culture.

REFERENCES

1. Aiello, J. R., Nicosia, G., & Thompson, D. E. (1979). Physiological, social and behavioral consequences of crowding on children and adolescents. Child Development, 50, 195-202.
2. Aiello, J. R., & Thompson, D. E. (1980). Personal space, crowding, and spatial behavior in a cultural context. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Environment and culture (vol. 3, pp. 107-178). New York: Plenum.
3. Aiello, J. R., Thompson, D. E., & Baum, A. (1985). Children, crowding, and control: Effects of environmental stress on social behavior. In J. F. Wohlwill & W. van Vliet (Eds.), Habitats for children: The impacts of density (pp. 97-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Andrade, S. A., Santos, D. N., Bastos, A. C., Pedromônico, M. R. M., de Almeida-Filho N., & Barreto, M. L. (2005). Family environment and child’s cognitive development: An epidemiological approach. Rev Saúde Pública, 39(4), 1-6.
5. Angold, A., Costello, E. J., & Worthman, C. M. (1998). Puberty and depression: The roles of age, pubertal status, and pubertal timing. Psychological Medicines, 28, 51-60.
6. Atzaba-Poria, N., & Pike, A. (2008). Correlates of parental differential treatment: Parental and contextual factors during middle childhood. Child Development, 79, 217-232.
7. Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti, S. A. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 623-634.
8. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. USA: Harvard University Press.
9. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21^st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115-125.
10. Charbonneau, A. M., Mezulis, A. H., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Stress and emotional reactivity as explanation for gender differences in adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 1050-1058.
11. Christie, D., & Gilckman, C. (1980). The effects of classroom noise on children: Evidence for sex differences. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 405-408.
12. Coldwell, J., Pike, A., & Dunn, J. (2006). Household chaos–links with parenting and child behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(11), 1116-1122.
13. Compan, E., Moreno, J., Ruiz, M. T., & Pascual, E. (2002). Doing things together: Adolescent health and family rituals. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 89-94.
14. Corapci, F., & Wachs, T. D. (2002). Does parental mood or efficacy mediate the influence of environmental chaos upon parenting behavior? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 182-201.
15. Costello, E. J., Mustillo, S., ErKanli, A., Keelen, G., & Angold, A. (2003). Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 837-844.
16. Deater-Deckard, K., Mullinex, P. Y., Beekman, C., Petrill, S. A., Schatschneider, C., & Thompson, L. A. (2009). Conduct problems, IQ, and household chaos: A longitudinal multi-informant study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(4), 108.
17. Dumas, J. E., LaFreniere, P. J., & Serketich, W. J. (1995). Balance or power: A transactional analysis of control in mother-child dyads involving socially competent, aggressive, and anxious children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 104-113.
18. Dumas, J. E., Nissley, J., Nordstrom, A., Smith, E. P., Prinz, R. J., & Levine, D. W. (2005). Home chaos: Sociodemographic, parenting, interactional, and child correlates. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 93-104.
19. Eisenberg, M. E., Olson, R. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Bearinger, L. H. (2004). Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicines, 158, 792-796.
20. Eley, T. C., Deater-Deckard, K., Fombonne, E., Fulker, D. W., & Plomin, R. (1998). An adoption study of depressive symptoms in middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 39(3), 337-45.
21. Evans, G. W. (1978). Crowding and the developmental process. In A. Baum and Y. M. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses to crowding (pp 117-139). Hillsdale, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publications.
22. Evans, G. W. (2003). A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load among rural children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 924-933.
23. Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423-451.
24. Evans, G. W., Bullinger, M., & Hygge, S. (1998). Chronic exposure and physiological response: A prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychological Science, 9, 75-77.
25. Evans, G. W., Hygge, S., & Bullinger, M. (1995). Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychological Science, 6, 333-338.
26. Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., Shejwal, B. R., & Palsane, M. N. (1998). Chronic residential crowding and children’s well-being: An ecological perspective. Child Development, 69, 1514-1523.
27. Evans, G. W., Lepore, S., & Allen, K. M. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in tolerance for crowding: Fact or fiction? Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 79, 204-210.
28. Evans, G., Maxwell, L., & Hart, B. (1999). Parental language and verbal responsiveness to children in crowded homes. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1020-1023.
29. Haider, M., & Badami, M. (2010). Urbanization and local governance challenges in Pakistan. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1, 81-96.
30. Haines, M., Stansfeld, S., Brentnall, S., Head, J., Berry, B., Jiggins, M., & Hygge, S. (2001). The West London Schools Study: The effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health. Psychological medicine, 31, 13851396.
31. Hambrick-Dixon, P. (1998). The effect of elevated subway train noise over time on Black children’s visual vigilance performance. Journal of environmental Psychology, 8, 299-314.
32. Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., Moffit, T. E., Silva, P. A., McGee, R., & Angell, K. E. (1998). Development of depression from preadolescence to young adulthood: Emerging gender differences in a 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 107, 128-140.
33. Lightdale, J. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). Rethinking sex differences in aggression: Aggressive behavior in the absence of social roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 34-44.
34. Loo, C. M. (1978). Density, crowding, and preschool children. In A. Baum & Y. M. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses to crowding (pp. 371-388). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Loo, C. M. (1979). A factor analytic approach to the study of spatial density effects on preschoolers. Journal of Population, 2, 47-68.
36. Loo, C., & Kennelly, D. (1979). Social density: Its effects on behavior and perception of preschoolers. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3(3), 131-146.
37. Matheny, A. (1991). Children’s unintentional injuries and gender: Differentiation by environmental and psychosocial aspects. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 8(3/4), 51-61.
38. Matheny, A. P. Jr., Wachs, T. D., Ludwig, J. L., & Phillips, K. (1995). Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 429-444.
39. Matheny, A., & Phillips, K. (2001). Temperament and context: Correlates of home environment with temperament continuity and change, newborn to 30 months. In T. D. Wachs & G. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament in context (pp. 81-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Mumtaz, Z., & Salway, S. (2007). Gender, health, and the uptake of antenatal care services in Pakistan. Sociology of Health and Illness, 29, 1-26.
41. Oldehinkel, A. J., Veenstra, R., Ormel, J., DeWinter, A. F., & Verhulst, F. C. (2006). Temperament, parenting, and depressive symptoms in a population sample of preadolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(7), 684-695.
42. Oldehinkel, A. J., Wittchen, H. O., & Schuster, P. (1999). Prevalence, 20-month incidence and outcome of unipolar depressive disorders in a community sample of adolescents. Psychological Medicine, 29, 655-668.
43. Peterson, D. R. (1961). Behavioral problems of middle childhood. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(3), 205-209.
44. Quaid, S. T., Khan, M. A., Anwar, A., & Mateen, G. A. (2001). Differences in academic achievement between children in schools situated in quiet and noisy areas. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 32, 29-44.
45. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children: Manual (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson.
46. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Lawlor, M. S., Oberle, E., & Thomson, K. (2009). Indicators of social and emotional healthy living, children ages 5-12 years.
47. Shamama-tus-Sabah, S., & Gilani, N. (2008). Establishing psychometric properties of CHAOS Scale-Urdu version (Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale) and couples’ perception of home chaos in Pakistani culture. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 73-84.
48. Shamama-tus-Sabah, S., & Gilani, N. (2010). Household chaos and its association with maternal education, family system, and children’s academic achievement in Pakistani culture. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 25(1), 19-30.
49. Supplee, L. H., Unikel, E. B., & Shaw, D. S. (2007). Physical environmental adversity and the protective role of maternal monitoring in relation to early child conduct problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 166-183.
50. Wachs, T. D. (1979). Proximal experience and early cognitive-intellectual development: The physical environment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 25, 3-41.
51. Wachs, T. D. (1989). The nature of physical microenvironment: An expanded classification system. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 399-402.
52. Wachs, T. D. (1993). Nature of relations between the physical and social microenvironment of the two year old child. Early Development and Parenting, 2, 81-87.
53. Wachs, T. D. (2010). Viewing microsystem chaos through a Bronfenbrenner bio-ecological model. In G. Evans & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Chaos and its influence on children’s development (pp. 97-112). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
54. Wachs, T. D., & Evans, G. W. (2010). Chaos in context. In G. Evans & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Chaos and its influence on children’s development (pp. 3-13). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
55. Wachs, T. D., Gurkas, P., & Kontos, S. (2004). Predictors of preschool children’s compliance behavior in early childhood classroom settings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 439-457.
56. Winkvist, A., & Akhtar, H. (1997). Images of health and health care options among low income women in Punjab, Pakistan. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 1483-1491.